Jeff Chester Reports on Digital Media and the Public Interest
Here’s a new piece I wrote for The Nation magazine online that summarizes my concerns about what is happening with our digital media system–and what we should do about it.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061030/chester
accreditated universitiesactive credit numbers cardcards back 2 cash credit1st credit finiancialeducation accreditated onlinetax credit additionalaccepting credit payment card1st credit union service Map
I’m sure the sell-outs who make up most of the Washington telecom lobbying corps believe that FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein must come from another planet. But these all too rare two officials represent so much about what is right with the U.S. They are doing more than standing up for the public interest and demanding merger safeguards. Each has made a powerful and honest critique about what is at stake. They recognize that the U.S. broadband digital media system has been handed over to an ever-shrinking few. They realize that the U.S. media system, especially news, is in a deep crisis. Copps and Adelstein correctly critiqued what the Bush Department of Justice just did yesterday when it blessed the merger without safeguards. How refreshing to have officials who work for the public–and not really on behalf of a handful of self-serving media giants who place corporate and personal profit before the real needs of a democratic U.S.
Copps and Adelstein: Onwards to the Noble Peace Prize (Media Policy division!). Nobel citation: Trying (probably in vain) to restore honesty, integrity, and real public service to the FCC.
A tragedy of Shakespearean proportions continues at the troubled Tribune Company. It has dismissed the Los Angeles Time publisher who bravely stood with those at the paper opposing further editorial budget cuts. The once-glorious Times Mirror chain–including its Los Angeles Times jewel–has been seriously journalistically wounded by the Tribune Co.
Perhaps no company lobbied the FCC as hard to sweep away media ownership safeguards as did Tribune. During the Michael Powell era, it used raw political power—and editorial might—in an attempt to eliminate the key federal safeguard promoting diversity of news ownership (the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule). Trib DC lobbyists—and top executives such as Jack Fuller—staked the company’s future on television. The shortsighted strategy was based on greed. If only the company could own more TV stations in the same places where it owned newspapers, all kinds of positive financial synergies would emerge (think cost-cutting). Tribune execs especially desired the quick and easy profits from the TV syndication market, where it sells such programs as Beastmaster and Mutant X.
So the Tribune Company paid more attention to pleasing Wall Street than its mission to provide serious support for print journalism. Now, the empire is unraveling—although too many good reporters, editors (and it appears) even publishers will suffer as a consequence. We believe that profits beyond covering expenses must come second when running a news media business. The seeking of ever-higher revenues cannot be the principle corporate mission for journalism. That’s why Congress needs to exempt publicly-traded news companies from having to place the needs of shareholders ahead of the public interest. Nor should media companies lobby to promote further concentration of ownership. Indeed, we need to break-apart the news organizations now in the hands of vast entertainment empires. Running a theme park and a movie studio–along with a news organization–creates all kinds of conflicts and distractions. Media consolidation is not the answer. But producing a quality news product—especially a newspaper—is. It’s time for reporters and others who care about news to seek new policies that would ensure independent and serious journalism thrives in the digital era (which is one of the key reasons why the U.S. needs to restore network neutrality for broadband).
According to today’s paidcontent.org, YouTube’ founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen are “[N]ow exploring “complementary†advertising, Hurley said the site can help redefine the $74 billion TV ad industry by combining context, like Google’s text ads, with the sensory power of TV to present “a compelling brand imageâ€. Hurley and Chen are open to anything apparently – ideas include user-generated ads, behind-the-scenes ad footage, sponsored vlogs and “event marketing†shoots at film festivals. The home page video ad, which NBC and ESPN use to plug new shows, generates around $175,000 and 400,000 viewers. (Update: that’s per day, according to this piece.)â€
Where will the boundaries be? How will privacy be truly protected? What kind of special treatment will the big media and marketing companies receive when they fork out all that daily dough? Stay tuned for more coverage on Web 2.0.
Look, we all know that Google is in the business of delivering eyeballs and clicks. That’s where it makes 99% or so of its revenue. But have they no sense of bounds for the evolving role of interactive marketing? According to Mediapost, Tim Armstrong, Google’s vice president for ad sales, said today that “[A]t the end of the day, we’d like to see Madison Avenue get bigger.” The online publication reported that “Google wants to combine Madison Avenue with Silicon Valley to forge what [Armstrong] hopes will be the largest marketing platform around.†Armstrong made these comments at Google’s new offices located in New York City’s Chelsea district.
There need to be meaningful safeguards to govern the new media marketing world. The folks at Google shouldn’t be so glib about creating a system of digital platforms where over-consumption permeates our identity—online and off.
Source: “Google Sets Sights On Madison Avenue.†Wendy Davis, Just an Online Minute via Mediapost. Oct. 2, 2006
xxx samples free movie cliplesbian full moviesgag moviesgay black moviestheater movie great escapemovie hardcore gallerieshardcore movie sexhentai downloads movie Map
It’s October 1 and the new PBS online ad deal kicks in. Throughout PBS.org one will experience more interactive ads (they call it “sponsorship banners”). There aren’t many yet–one a pitch for the Christian Children’s Fund on the “Home & Hobbies” page. There are also promos for its ad partner Google: a number of pages promote PBS programs available via video.google.com. The site still contains Google-operated “sponsored links,” including from the Pottery Barn, the College of Body Arts, and Culinary Art Schools. Our favorite for the moment is the “Lose 20 Lbs in 3 Weeks: Amazing Chinese fat-loss secret. As seen on Oprah & 60 Minutes.” As we noted before, PBS should not be engaged in interactive advertising–on its website or via other digital platforms. We recommend the recent analysis of the PBS ombudsman on the issue here. Eventually, the ad money–and relationships with powerful corporations such as Google–will affect programming decisions. Best to foresake it now. But a Google, Microsoft and others should donate considerable sums to a public telecommunications trust–a bank account to ensure that non-profit public service programming can be produced regardless of who controls the Hill or White House. Or whether we have to click on the ad for weight control.
We hate to focus too much on this Telco-Cable industry funded lobbying effort. But its latest [9/29] self-heralded “one-pager†attacking network neutrality proponents requires a response (we admit we may have come down with a Sen. Stevens form of `fetish’ about this lobbying site). Netcompetition’s analysis comes from a naive view of the realities of the broadband market. The paper paints a glowing picture of what it believes is emerging broadband competition. Hence, with such prospective abundance of networks and content likely, it argues that the country ignore the calls for safeguards coming from net neutrality supporters. We are, suggests Scott Cleland, experiencing “unfounded pessimism and fear about the future of broadband…â€
First, we have to say that history is on our side. Despite all the talk and proclamations about bypass and competition—we haven’t had much in the multichannel and telecom sector. It’s been a sad story of consolidation and broken promises. Two, Mr. Cleland is ignoring the powerful triple/quad play now being deployed by his funders. Their networks—and content applications and partnerships—will dominate our TV, PC, and mobile experience for many years. The current state of broadband concentration–along with the emerging marketplace conditions–should be unthinkable in a democracy. Two companies control the cable industry; two will dominate the telephone market. Already, old media incumbents are swallowing new players—such as the News Corp. takeover of MySpace. There is tremendous consolidation throughout the digital content marketplace.
Hey Netcompetition. Your argument that just over the hill our digital media system is awash in a Wizard of Oz golden glow doesn’t cut it. We need safeguards now.
It’s not pessimism, but honest realism with an eye on the needs of our democracy. That’s a currency in too short supply in the nation’s capital.
If we ever needed evidence about how both major political parties are in the pocket of the telecommunications industry’s very deep pockets, all we need to do is look at California. The new cable law kills the historic and critical role local governments have played in ensuring cable systems are held accountable and required to do public service. Now all franchising (the licensing of cable systems) will be governed by a single statewide agreement. Doling out these “one-size fits all, lowest common denominator†deals will be the feckless Public Utility Commission.
Democratic honcho Fabian Nunez, the Speaker of the Assembly, concocted the new law. Yesterday, GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed it. According to the Los Angeles Times, “AT&T spent $18 million through June lobbying and running television and full-page newspaper ads urging consumers to support the Nuñez bill — and then to thank Nuñez after it passed the Legislature.” [registration required]
The argument that Nunez and his Verizon and AT&T pals made to pass the bill was that only by gutting local oversight could California see cable competition. Boy, these folks should be ashamed. They have removed the key mechanism designed to ensure broadband networks serve local needs. There won’t be any serious competition—in either price or content. Just a few extra giants who are now free to run roughshod over both the cable TV and broadband business.
But money and power talks—and Nunez, Schwarzenegger and company played ball. Both parties in California have helped turn over a sizeable part of the country’s broadband resources to the very same interests which eliminated network neutrality.
PS: We note in the Los Angeles Times story the generally approving comments for the bill from USC’s Jeff Cole, the executive director of its Center for the Digital Future. Cole should have said [and the reporter should have identified if he did] that his center’s “Board of Governors†includes executives from AT&T (and other interests that supported the bill). As I said, money talks—with policymakers and too many “educational†institutions.
porn 69 moviesporn videos 69position 69 pornporn 69ingporn 6th gradeporn inch 7 penis70 pornoporn 70 s Map
The folks at the Glover Park Group—who last year helped conduct a stealth campaign to aid Rupert Murdoch—are now assisting Sen. Ted Stevens wreck the U.S. electronic media system. Stevens’ Commerce Committee released a poll yesterday slamming “onerous Net Neutrality regulations.†The Verizon-paid for poll illustrates how desperate Sen. Stevens and his phone/cable monopoly allies are (nothing about Verizon’s sponsorship is cited in the release or the poll—something the Commerce Committee should apologize to the public for).
Stevens and company can’t really speak about the substantive issues involving Internet Freedom—because they lose. So Stevens and allies now appear to be hanging their argument supporting a closed Internet on a poll finding that only “very few registered voters are familiar with the issue of network neutrality.†As if the lack of public awareness about an important policy issue means something is wrong with it! Hello. Has the Senator been swallowing those tubes, instead of using them to get his talking points from the Glover Park Group flackery shop?
Now, to the “bipartisan†Glover Park Group (which did the poll with Public Opinion Strategies). Aren’t we tired of Democrats who take the big bucks and the public interest be damned? This poll was written to help phone companies scuttle policies designed to provide community oversight of electronic media. The poll should come with a warning: “this is a political tool.” That Stevens, Glover Park, and Public Opinion would hold it up as some objective measure is a sad joke. It’s a lobbying love letter for Verizon, AT&T, BellSouth and the USTA. It asks questions about network neutrality purposely designed to undermine it as an issue. Perhaps that’s why the poll doesn’t reveal who funded it. Such well-known Democratic operatives as Howard Wolfson, Joe Lockhart, and Carter Eskew run Glover Park. In 2005, the group helped Rupert Murdoch organize a campaign designed to keep bringing in extra cash for his Fox TV empire. Press reports say they also have worked for big cable companies as well.
By helping the phone lobby create a closed Internet, the Glover Park Group is undermining the country’s democracy. What great credentials alongside working for Fox.
title abc loan96 loans auto monthloans 5000 no check creditafrica loan microloans interest 3.9accedemic group loanpayday advantages of loansurl payday add loan Map
We think Google founders’ Larry Page and Sergey Brin need to revisit what they personally hope to ultimately contribute to society. Google’s deal with Rupert Murdoch’s Fox, including its Foxnews.com sites, supports a media empire that has engaged in jingoistic journalism (to say the least!). Hey, Google guys. Don’t you recall what Fox did to help get us into a war that has unnecessarily cost so many, many, thousands of lives—let alone caused so much destruction?
Helping Rupert Murdoch out is exactly what Google is doing. Google’s signed a much-publicized deal with Fox Interactive Media (FIM) last month, making it the “exclusive search keyword targeted advertising sales provider†for Murdoch’s MySpace.com “community.†But Google is also working with the rest of Murdoch’s FIM properties, including Foxnews.com, fox.com, Foxsports.com, ign.com, askmen.com, etc. Google will be giving its pal Murdoch a minimum of $900 million over a three-year period, as part of its revenue sharing deal.
I know people will say it’s only business—and that if Google didn’t make the deal, a Yahoo! or MSN would. But that’s not the point. You need to be careful about who you choose as your business partners. So despite the positive PR Google gets when it creates a for-profit foundation, there is something ultimately wrong-headed about the company. Helping Rupert Murdoch sell interactive ads and promote the Foxnews brand is another indication that Google’s legacy may be one rich with cash—but not corporate moral clarity.